Before and after what turned out to be Manny Pacquiao's final fight last month against the injured Errol Spence Jr.'s replacement Yordenis Ugas, I noticed an old topic resurface on social media.
That topic surrounded where Pacquiao's lengthy in-ring career, accomplishments, triumphs and records put him on an all-time boxing greats list. There remain a fair number of fans who insist on placing him on a 'B+ grade' tier beneath the absolute icons of the sport, citing one of two main reasons for their argument.
Argument number one is that Pacquiao failed to win 10 of his 72 bouts since turning pro in 1995. This of course is the argument popularised by diehard fans of one of Manny's conquerors, Floyd Mayweather Jr. Mayweather, while undoubtedly one of the finest to lace the gloves, made a very careful point of ensuring his 50-0 unbeaten record was at as little risk as possible so that he could proclaim that he was THE very best — "the best ever", to specifically quote his marketing and merchandising campaign.
Mayweather won their battle in 2015, but it came five years after fan demand for the clash of the titans hit fever pitch in 2010. Would the result have been different back then? It's hard to say: Mayweather was certainly still one of the best around, but Pacquiao was arguably much more dangerous.
And the final 'Pac-Man' record (62-8-2, 39 KOs) could also have been far more flattering had he been more selective with his fights. But that simply wasn't his style — and that alone is a huge testament to his greatness.
Pacquiao's resume reads like a 'who's who' of his generation's fighters. He took on dangerous fighters, opponents he had already conquered and more. From a fan perspective, his approach to his livelihood was far more admirable than a meticulously-protected image of perfection that we all know doesn't truly exist. Even on his way out, Pacquiao wanted Spence, who is an undefeated two-belt champion and on many pound-for-pound top 10 lists, including DAZN's.
The second argument is a classic cringeworthy claim: that he wasn't as good as the fighters from 'the good old days'. The reason this assertion induces a facepalm each time it is uttered is because time has always been life's greatest illusionist. Competitors who are unanimously placed on an all-time top 10 (and deservedly so) such as Muhammad Ali and Sugar Ray Robinson also had their fair share of defeats, flaws and more that find themselves washed away over time when we as fans move to scrutinise their contemporaries instead.
In fact, it's likely Pacquiao will be a beneficiary of this very dissonance 20-30 years from now, when the welterweight champions of the year 2059 are ridiculed for losing one fight and are proclaimed as being "unfit to lace Manny Pacquiao's gloves".
For the fights Pacquiao helped deliver for the fanbase, for the unprecedented achievements (he remains the only eight-weight world champion in history, a feat that may never be touched) and for the excitement he cultivated whenever the bell rang, this intrepid warrior will go down in history as one of the greatest of all time.
And whenever any given promoter or any given weight class in any given generation refuses to let the best fight the best for fear of suffering that very first loss coming across as anything less than Superman, I suspect those who were fortunate enough to watch Pacquiao do his thing over these last 26 years will wish there remained far more Manny Pacquiaos in the sport.